Transparency International - Corruption in the pharmaceutical industry

Transparency International, the global coalition against corruption founded in 1993, is trying hard to implement anti-corruption reforms worldwide and claims that "corruption hurts everyone".
Of course they have to focus on medicine and on this page there are some data on the corruption in the pharmaceutical industry and health.

This is one of their texts:

Corruption in the pharmaceutical industry

"In addition to cases of bribery and corruption discussed in the sub-page on procurement of medicines (typically involving drugs and medical equipment manufacturers as the bribe payers and government officials or hospital administrators as the recipients) there are other ways in which the pharmaceutical sector might have a corrosive influence on the drugs and medical equipment market.

One of the reasons why the sector is vulnerable to corruption is that it is heavily regulated. Heavily regulation is essential to safeguard the population against sub-standard drugs and unfairly priced goods. But there is a second central reason why governments regulate the pharmaceutical market: to ensure that industrial policies strengthen economic competitiveness of the pharmaceutical sector and improve innovation and efficiency. These two objectives can sometimes lie at cross-purposes. If regulators are subject to pressure from commercial groups, health objectives can be compromised. Generous political campaign donations and lobbying expenditures by pharmaceutical companies are examples of such pressures.

The relationship between drugs companies and physicians is also vulnerable to corruption. Doctors may be offered commissions for prescribing a particular drug or a drug from a particular company. Because this practice is illegal in most countries, companies may employ underhand methods to disguise such kickbacks. The aggressive promotion of medicines, the sheer volume of information that is received in its many forms by prescribers and the use of patient groups through which to generate demand for prescription drugs, all contribute to the inappropriate prescription of medicines. In the United States some US$ 16 billion is spent annually by pharmaceutical, device and biotechnology industries on marketing to physicians.

The issue of unethical pharmaceutical marketing practice has received a great deal of attention in recent years, prompting many doctors associations, pharmaceutical industry associations and individual corporations to engage with the issue. Many have passed codes of conduct and ethical guidelines for the marketing of pharmaceuticals; but if not monitored and enforced, their impact will be limited.

Another form of corruption threatening the pharmaceutical industry occurs during clinical trials. Doctors are often paid by pharmaceutical companies to recruit patients for clinical trials or sit on clinical trial boards while simultaneously on the pay role of the manufacturing company in question. Many research institutions and universities have institutional review boards or research ethics committees responsible for reporting procedures and policies regarding conflicts of interest. Problems arise as to who will monitor the conflicts of interest and what, if any, sanction doctors will receive for failing to disclose conflicts of interest. On a national level, oversight becomes even more problematic. Moreover, there is debate over whether disclosure is sufficient: should researchers be allowed to conduct research for companies in which they have a financial interest?"

It's amazing how hard it's to fight corruption and it's funny that the word "corruption" is not used when dealing with pharmaceutical industry issues. The real name for what is going on is corruption.

Ten most corrupt leaders

Name	Position	Estimates of funds allegedly embezzled (in U.S. $)
1.	Mohamed Suharto	President of Indonesia (1967–1998)	$15 to 35 billion
2.	Ferdinand Marcos	President of the Philippines (1972–1986)	5 to 10 billion
3.	Mobutu Sese Seko	President of Zaire (1965–1997)	5 billion
4.	Sani Abacha	President of Nigeria (1993–1998)	2 to 5 billion
5.	Slobodan Milosevic	President of Serbia/Yugoslavia (1989–2000)	1 billion
6.	Jean-Claude Duvalier	President of Haiti (1971–1986)	300 to 800 million
7.	Alberto Fujimori	President of Peru (1990–2000)	600 million
8.	Pavlo Lazarenko	Prime Minister of Ukraine (1996–1997)	114 to 200 million
9.	Arnoldo Alemán	President of Nicaragua (1997–2002)	100 million
10.	Joseph Estrada	President of the Philippines (1998–2001)	78 to 80 million

Source Transparency International - 2004

Do you tell that you take psych-drugs on the first date?

I keep on wondering if I've missed the mag who wrote this article. If it's not written yet it's a shame! Perhaps by the end of the first date:

Me "-I have something to tell you. Something very serious."
Him "-You can tell me whatever you want." {very understanding kind}
Me "-It's really serious, you know? I don't know what you'll think about me after a tell what I have to say.
Him "-You are worrying me. But what could be that serious?"
Me "-I take Effexor, Seroquel and Clonazepam. {feeling like the world is falling apart}
Him "-What on earth are these? Are you doing drugs like ecstasy or heroin?
Me "-No! These are psychiatric drugs. {wanting to run}
Him "-Say what? Are you a lunatic... I mean... mentally disturbed... you know... crazy?

I don't think this is the best way. And how am I going to explain that I'm on these drugs because of withdrawal symptoms? Would it be better to say that I'm bipolar and spare the details? Must I tell the Effexor withdrawal saga: that I've spent two years tapering off Effexor blah... blah... blah... ?
Please! I need an article on one of these mags. Marie Claire, please!

SocialAudit - Effects after long-term use Zoloft/Prozac/Citalopram/Mirtazapine

II've just found these two comments I've saved on 8/20 2005. They are from the thread "Effects after long-term use" of SocialAudit's discussion board.
It's a pity that it's not open because there are many testimonies of numerous people telling their stories. They are a valuable resource for those who are withdrawing now. I've saved these two:

"My problem is this: It is now nearly three months since I stopped taking the Zoloft. Once the "physical" signs of withdrawal began to diminish (e.g., I haven't needed to take anything to sleep for three weeks now; I no longer experience the "itching" or the "passing-out sensation followed by muscle spasms") -- now, however, I seem to be mired in one of the worst depressions of my life. I've put on somewhere between 10-15 pounds over the past two months. My energy is low; I feel like I'm slogging through water much of the time. Basically, I'm sure I have all the classic symptoms of major depression, including powerful feelings of anguish, rage, and hopelessness -- except, thanks to many years working with a wonderful therapist and my own insight into antidepressants, I also recognize the perhaps iatrogenic nature of all this and am trying to ride it out, not to take it too personally."

Re:Effects after long-term use (Dec 5th posting).


"I was placed on the following drugs over a period of nearly 8 years. They were all prescribed by an expert in the study of depression, who I had appointments with at a university hospital over the complete time period. All my efforts to describe the side-effects to him were ineffectual, interrupted and over-ruled. The usual response was 'That's not the way it is...' and 'You must accept that...' :-

1. Prozac (years 1-4 approx):

Twitching - so severe that at night I lay and my entire body twanged like a plucked guitar string. In the day I would sit on my hands to stop the twitching, only for it to travel upwards to my shoulders.

Insomnia - immediate and dreadful, never lessened (despite being put on temazapan). Lack of sleep was to become a perpetual nightmare, yet it was never a problem pre-drug (when I over-slept).

Dreams - disappeared, what snatched hours of sleep I got were dreamless chasms.

Weight Gain - steady. I was probably about 8 and bit stone to start with (and had NO eating or weight problems at all, I never even weighed myself).

Tiredness/Lethargy - Constant. It took everything I had to stay on my feet for a few hours, when my head finally started to rock I could usually make it to a bed, but if I didn't manage to get under the duvet on the first attempt, then I just stayed sprawled because I couldn't make my limbs work for long enough before sleep/unconsciousness claimed me for the next 2-3 hours. After which, the insomnia kicked in, and off we went again on the same vicious merry-go-round.

Numbness - emotional. Vey quick. Peviously I was probably near-empathic (too many years of having to accurately 'read' people); cared too much; felt too much; saw too much. Prozac reduced me to a couldn't-care-less vegetable.

Tremor - hands.

Sexual Problems - inability to orgasm.

Staggering - often lurched when walking.

Yawning - endless fits. Jaw ached.

Concentration - short-term declined rapidly. The ability to continue the hobbies that had survived 25 years of undiagnosed critical depression was destroyed. Every particle of willpower was now required simply to put one foot in front of the other. Ability to focus and comprehend what people were saying in general conversation declined (never a pre-drug problem). Ability to THINK virtually destroyed. Ability to 'read' people, destroyed.

Self-mutilation - started almost immediately, yet I had NEVER cut myself before in my life.

Suicidal - I had always been suicidal (thought it was the norm), but the 'want' and the 'action' were completely separate i.e. death was always a very attractive proposition, but I wasn't going to kill myself. This changed within 6 weeks, it brought the two together & probably explains why the self-mutilation started. I have never in my life experienced the like of it: the depths of blackness into which the slightest trigger or stress would drop me, the effort it took to stave off suicide, the severity and length of the battles to keep me breathing.

Socially - Didn't want to see a soul. Previously I had kept a small number of social contacts going throughout the years. Not any longer. My smile disappeared, my conversation stilted, and finally I just shut social contact down.

Verbally - ability to form coherent sentences declined. Developed verbal diarrhoea, and a tendency to repeat myself incessantly. Pre-drug I was concise, eloquent and to-the-point.

I sum up these years as being a 'twitching insomniaced zombie.' Probably used-up all willpower in trying to keep breathing and moving.


2. Citalopram (Years 4-6)

All of the above continued unabated. I tried to stop taking the drug, but ended up worse (difficult, but definitely achieved), was castigated and told to continue with the tablets.

3. Mirtazapine (Years 6-7/8)

After going to my GP, almost literally on my knees, and in total desperation, I babbled out some of the above to her. Unbeknownst, she then wrote to the specialist - who was not best pleased - but at last he decided to move away from these SSRIs. Unfortunately it was onto Mirtazapine.

Very quickly I became hostile. Hostile to everyone and everything. At the first appointment after the switch to this drug I attempted to impart the details, only to be interrupted with 'That's the disease, not the drug.' End of subject. Strange that I had always been a kind, quiet, gentle soul prior to this drug (discounting the zombie SSRI years). Even stranger that now I found my first impulses were to spout foul language, to be aggressive, to think of hitting & killing others, to go from the numbed emotions of the SSRIs to the lack of emotion altogether. The weight gain increased (I was now well over 13 stone, and waddled erratically). Sleep and tiredness problems continued. The twitching died down. I remained as suicidal as on the SSRIs. Knowing that I would not last much longer I spent my money on a holiday. I was right. About five months later I attempted suicide. After coming out of the hospital (a fascinating experience, I now know why you make damn sure a second suicide attempt works), I immediately started to reduce the mirtazapine, and over the next month weaned myself gradually off it (I learnt my lesson the hard way with the citalopram). Once off the drug I went to my GP (the one medical professional who had listened to me, and interestingly enough, the only non-specialist). She agreed with me. She wrote to inform the Professor at the university hospital that I would not be returning.

After Effects that still remain (4 years later): short-term memory completely shot; ability to concentrate virtually non-existent; cannot orgasm (since the first couple of months of the Prozac, so that makes it well over 11 years, folks); lethagy and tiredness not as bad as on drugs, but far worse than pre-drug; I tend to stagger now and then when very tired; I still have insomnia (but not as bad as on drugs); I don't dream very much - pre-drug I used to dream a lot - now sleep is mainly blank nothingness; when tired I occasionally find my right foot twitching; the level of suicidability is dramatically reduced, yet comparative to pre-drug it is bad; the desire to spout foul language, the aggression and utter hostility remain, and they are not greatly reduced. It is this that I find most appalling. After doing a search on MEDLINE I find that this effect has since been documented; the desire to self-mutilate remains, but so far I have fought it successfully; the triggers/stressors required to take me 'to the depths' are less than on the drugs BUT much greater than prior to them; emotionally I am dead, there is nothing left but uncaring disconnected blankness. Quite truthfully, I don't give a flying **** about anyone or anything, and going through all but the most basic motions is now beyond me. Pre-drug I felt too much, and filtered out in order to exist in the maelstrom. Now I clamp down on a vicious tongue, and inspect people with brutal calculation and total disinterest (myself among them). The verbal diarrhoea remains. The social isolation remains.

The person I was, pre-drug, no longer exists. I would happily give up my right arm - or whatever pound of flesh was the price - if it could get me back to that person. And yet that was an individual who was considered so ill, that my GP immediately referred me to 'the top'. It was a piece of cake, compared to this."

Email to Melvyn Sterling I've send on 2005 on SSRIs harms

I've just found an e-mail I wrote to Melvyn Sterling on 7/2 2005 during the Effexor withdrawal. It took me 18 months to withdraw and this is the month 12 of the withdrawal process. Jesus! I was very angry and was searching everywhere.

I first left this comment on SocialAudit:

"As Charles Medawar has alerted the House of Commons Health Committee have published The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry.

I believe everybody should take a look at this report for it has important contribution on withdrawal symptons. Among other informations there is:

"The suicidality problem was first investigated in 1990/1; withdrawal reactions were investigated in 1993, 1996 and 1998. In 2002, the MCA organised a further intensive review of both problems. This review was abandoned in April 2003, following criticism about conflicts of interest involving key figures on the review team."

This is a clear proof that our suffering is not only the result of the insane medicine. It is also a political issue and we have to do something about it.

Reuters, the American agency supports that:

"Aggressive efforts are now underway by a powerful consortium of medical-pharmaceutical self-interest groups among them, the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) to overturn the hard won ‘Black Box’ suicidality warning label on antidepressant drugs." (www.ssricitizen.org)*.

The chairman of AMA is Melvyn Sterling from the University of California. Almost every month the Reuters Health site reports what is being done by these Associations and the University of California. They are always claiming that there is no problem whatsoever. It’s safe for children, teenagers and for us too.

Writing to these Associations, and people like this Melvyn Sterling, is not a very big task. At least it gives us some relief."

*It was an amazing site that is no longer online.

This is the e-mail to Melvyn Sterling:

"One day your whole world falls apart due to a lot of problems you had. You search for help and the psychiatrist prescribes you clonazepam. Years go by and you. as your therapy is doing you good, search for help to get rid of the clonazepam. Due to the difficulty of withdrawal effects, he prescribes an antidepressant. You feel terrible and change the psychiatrist. He tries different antidepressants. You stay on one although you feel terrible and the side effects are tremendous. So another psychiatrist prescribe another one. Side effects are almost the same. But you keep on believing that you have a disease. You stay in bed, get really depressed like never before in your life. Feel like a zombie. Your family can’t stand you no longer. You loose your friends, job, money, have no more bank account. And you are feeling so miserable and does not feel your body no longer. Than you start thinking that maybe the problem is due to the antidepressant. Start to take the drug away. You enter in a state of complete anguish, despair and you start searching in the Internet. Then you find out that there are many people suffering just like you and that it will takes a long time to get rid off a drug called antidepressant that ironically brought you into depression. The withdrawal effects are unbearable. And you find out that these drugs are powerful and are on the market not because they are good for your mental health. You find out that the USA Pharmacological Industry and some Associations like, oh my God, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Medical Association, American Medical Association's Council on Scientific Affairs, the University of California, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, even Mr. Bush father who was once on the Elli-Lilly board, take part on a powerful consortium of medical-pharmaceutical self-interest groups.

These Associations, that are supposed to take care at least of American citizens, don’t even care if children are committing suicide. Even when the evidences are everywhere even when the UK House of Parliament have published a report The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry where you can read: "The suicidality problem was first investigated in 1990/1; withdrawal reactions were investigated in 1993, 1996 and 1998. In 2002, the MCA organised a further intensive review of both problems. This review was abandoned in April 2003, following criticism about conflicts of interest involving key figures on the review team." but fortunately they had the guts to go on and publish this crucial report where you can read among other things: “… SSRIs Prozac and Seroxat are the best-known examples of SSRI and related antidepressants, but others are widely used. The introduction of SSRIs led to a threefold increase in antidepressant prescriptions between 1990 and 2000. Prescriptions for antidepressants now match those of the benzodiazepine tranquillisers at their peak, 25 years ago. Almost from the outset, there was concern about two main problems with SSRIs. First, there was suspicion (initially centered on Prozac) that these drugs could induce suicidal and violent behaviour – infrequently, but independently of the suicidal thoughts that are linked to depression itself. There was also concern (centred on Seroxat) about a risk of dependence; some users found it impossible to stop taking SSRIs because of severe withdrawal symptoms. The MCA/CSM formally reviewed these problems on several occasions.”

Fortunately some countries, in this globalized world have some common sense left.

But you who are in the high position in USA insists in its policy of spreading horrors around the world even at the expenses of others people heath, as long as the billions of dollars goes to your country. Only when you loose health you know that this is the most important thing in the life of any human being. Without it, whether physical or mental, you are unable to do anything. Some of you, for I truly believe you are human beings, must have a disease of any kind. Imagine if you cannot find help or even paying for the best physician of your problem you receive a wrong treatment.

I said I truly believe you are human beings because the rationality of this species is the only one I know that can inflict pain in others without any guilty and without any reason threat to it’s life. You have Aushwitz, Gulag, Abbu Graibb, Guantanamo Bay as an example of my point.

What you are inflicting with the so-called antidepressants is not different from physical torture. It’s mental torture. And it aches, it aches like hell. You have affected me and many others in my body, you know very well what it does with our bodies, my mind, my dignity and morality in the eyes of others. For to some people. I cannot work. I’m no more reliable. You know about the stigma mental problems suffer. Unfortunately, due to your work, WHO is not able to launch it’s campaign about mental diseases.
I’ll stay here, in Brazil after one year and two months tapering the antidepressant and still have to get rid of the last pill. Completely stigmatized by my family, incapable of working for it’s impossible to work when you are taking away these drugs, that costs absurdly for American citizen and you can imagine having to pay these fortune due to the impossibility of getting out of these drugs in a country like Brazil. But “God Bless America” and I wish you all good mental and physical health. I hope you never have a friend or relative who shot someone due to the effect of triazolam, or any SSRI, SSNI. I wish you will never know anybody who had a relative who committed suicide. I wish you all a great deal of happiness although and a good use of the money you are profiting. Unfortunately money, when becomes not a mean but an end causes more distress than happiness for those who possesses. Can you say you are a happy person? Unfortunately it make lives like mine more difficult but for nothing in this world I would trade my dignity, my honor, my self-respect for any amount of money. You can laugh. Words like ethics, even mercy has no sense and will never make part of your dictionary.

PS Please do not answer me trying to say that you are right that what I’m saying has not been proved or that the University of California made experiments that are undeniable. My IQ still have three digits. You are fooled me once and it is enough. Now you are fooling yourselves and the average narrow-minded media class that does not search for answers by their own. Some people have to be told about everything. But the truth will be uncovered. I assure you.

I don't have a clue why I've got no reply! :)

Charles Medawar, SocialAudit, views on the Pharmas

The article "Depressing Stories about Pharmaceutical Control " has Charles Medawar views on many questions and I've took some of them:

"In questioning the adequacy of the official action taken so far, he raises basic questions about the competency of drug regulators and the lack of transparency in tackling user dependency and complaints in many countries."

"Part of this new and imperative emphasis on marketing involves relentless demonstrations of the triumph of benefit compared with risk, and the promotion of drugs for much more than they are worth. In this case, it also meant that the Pharmas tackled problems by challenging perceptions of risk and by ignoring or denying evidence of harm. In so doing, they systematically exploited the dependencies of governments and the medical establishment. There was little resistance, partly because the Pharmas were also dependent on them. Commercial sponsorship both sustained and undermined the reputation and independence of political, professional and academic institutions, drug regulatory systems, even patient organizations and the World Health Organization."

"But on the negative side, Pharmas were becoming expert at the subversion and manipulation of patients' views, by buying their way into patient organizations and other similar devices. As a result, patients' views "were increasingly orchestrated by marketing departments, public relations agencies and Pharma-sponsored patient organizations."

"But above all, Medawar suggests that the underlying policy objectives for pharmaceuticals are ill-founded. The main impetus for the recent EU changes in its pharmaceutical rules was the concern that the Pharmas were migrating to the US because the US was doing "better" than Europe; but, says Medawar, the perception was based on the assumption that drug innovation was what really mattered, and that quality of innovation could be measured just by the economic returns."

Side effects and withdrawal symptoms still unknown by psychiatrists

"I don't want sympathy. It's a fact of life. I don't want to be a victim either. I just want to be able to live with the least amount of side effects and be able to do the things I use to be able to do."

This is from Susan.who is coping with side effects of Cymbalta.

"Virtually all my physical debilitating symptoms can be traced back to when I first started tapering my 400 mgs of Lamictal. It was then that the crushing fatigue started, a couple of years ago. My situation is greatly complicated by the fact that I’ve come off six drugs so no one should generalize too broadly from my experience, but something should be able to be taken for those of you who are also having difficulties with withdrawal from Lamictal."

This is Gianna who is coping with the withdrawal hell.

They don't have help from psychiatrists.

Can anybody explain why psychiatrists keep on denying side effects and don't help people withdrawing?
Is there any psychiatrist that is able to answer this?

Post SSRIs Sexual Dysfunction - still ignored by psychiatrists - For Mr. Bremner

"However, to my knowledge it isn't known if this effect persists after discontinuation. What else? That it can cause prolonged sexual dysfunction after discontinuation? In my experience sexual function improves after discontinuation, although as I have said before I am always interested in hearing about new problems that people have with medications. Do you have that problem?"

This is Dr. Doug Bremner statement at Fiddaman "More Correspondence with Doug Bremner". I've asked many question Dr. Bremner answered them with more and more questions, ignored some of than or used the famous "according to my clinical experience it's not like this... -" what made the discussion impossible.

It sounds strange that at this point drug-induced sexual problems and PSSD are not recognized by some physicians.
I believe this article explains something so I've copied some excerpts.

Post SSRI Sexual Dysfunction
Audrey S. Bahrick, Ph.D.

"Post-market research has now firmly established that the SSRIs and SNRIs can significantly affect most very aspect of sexual functioning at rates significantly higher than the 5-15% reported in pre-market trials.
Depending on definitions of sexual dysfunction and methodology, post-market prevalence studies have found rates between 36% and 98%. The 5 to 15% rates of SSRI and SNRI-induced sexual side-effects listed in the current drug-insert literature are based on information obtained in the initial trials via spontaneous reports of individuals who had been on the medications for a short time. The differences in reported rates between the pre-market trials and post-market prevalence studies are an artifact of methodology; we now know that when individuals are directly asked about their experience of sexual side effects via either a structured clinical interview or a self-report inventory, we obtain vastly different rate information than if we rely on individuals to spontaneously volunteer personally sensitive information about changes in sexual functioning."


"The assumption that sexual functioning returns to baseline shortly after cessation of the medications is deeply embedded in our literature as well as in our approach to practice and prescribing.
Yet no original data supports this assumption: no study has followed the course of the sexual dysfunction after discontinuation of the medications for the purpose of determining when and to what degree the side effects resolve. While treatment-emergent sexual side effects probably do resolve for most individuals after discontinuing the medications, since we are not even asking the question of whether the side effects could persist for some individuals, we have not built the possibility of finding them into our research designs: at least not intentionally."

"Consumer reported information about persistent sexual side effects comes from the SSRIsex internet community. Founded in January of 2005, SSRIsex now includes a diverse membership of over eight hundred men and women who are struggling with sexual side effects that reportedly began on an SRI/SNRI, but that have persisted months and years after stopping the medications. The group’s purpose is support, the generation of hypotheses about what may have led to the persistent sexual dysfunction side effects, the sharing of information about attempted solutions, and the hope of enlisting researchers and professionals in collaborative efforts to understand and resolve the problem. Along with an ongoing moderated conversation among the membership that now includes over six thousand postings, his well-organized site includes a data base where individuals may describe their case history, and numerous voluntary polls related to particular side effects and their duration, specific medications and how long they were taken, and remedies attempted along with their results. Though the group has not yet been systematically surveyed, based on member postings and informal poll information, it appears that while any and all sexual side effects that start on the medications may continue after stopping them, reduced genital sensitivity, reduced intensity of orgasm, and severely diminished libido are characteristic of the condition which the group membership has termed Post SSRI Sexual Dysfunction (PSSD). It appears that a shared persistent effect of these medications is that they profoundly diminish the physical capacity to experience sexual pleasure. The day to day conversation among the geographically, ethnically and age-diverse-membership related to the problem of living with PSSD, for most a worse condition than the one they originally sought to treat, has created an unfolding collective narrative whose weight and substance urgently needs to be reconciled and integrated into our existing knowledge base."

"We are not negligent as professionals when we turn to our formal literature to inform ourselves. However when our formal knowledge base is inadequate or inaccurate, we are all left vulnerable to practicing in ways that may be less than ideal, to offering hurtful interpretations or misleading information to our clients in spite of our best intentions and best efforts to inform ourselves. The inadequacies and inaccuracies in our knowledge base have complex informed consent implications. A careful informed consent process includes accurate acknowledgment of our limits of knowledge. These limits would appear to be more far-reaching than we may have realized given the possibility of medication-induced sexual dysfunctions persisting for an unknown number of people, and the near impossibility of gaining a clear picture of how these medication may affect those individuals who have no well-established baseline of sexual functioning or are undeveloped sexually, such as adolescents and children."

"The burden and responsibility of providing informed consent falls to us all, but falls even more squarely on the shoulders of those who hold or will hold prescription privileges. I appreciate Division 55’s invitation to contribute this article and demonstrated high level of concern for accurate informed consent."

There is a site on PSSD but it has been hacked a long time ago and has not been reactivated.

Number 3 killer in America - Iatrogenesis

Searching for IATROGENESIS I've found this article and I'm glad that someone has noticed that the concept is not known.


The Number 3 Killer in America is Iatrogenesis
By Daryl Kulak

The number 1 killer in America? Heart disease. Number 2? Cancer. Number 3? Iatrogenesis.

Have you ever heard of iatrogenesis? The word doesn't even sound that harmful. It comes from two Greek words – iatros – meaning physician, and genesis – meaning created. Yes, the number 3 killer in America is death by doctor.

Did you know this? Wasn't it plastered all over the newspapers? Unbelievably, it was not broadcast on cable news channels, daily newspapers or on the radio.

This might make you suspect the origin of my claim. Did it come from some crazy tabloid? Some off-the-wall Website?

Well, that depends. It depends on whether you consider the Journal of the American Medical Association as a crazy tabloid. I really don't think it is. These statistics were published clearly and convincingly in the most esteemed medical journal in the world.

Here it is the entire article.

Iatrogenic disease

Iatrogenic Disease

Iatrogenesis is a concept that should be known by everybody and I don't understand why spell-checkers insist claiming it does not exist.

SSRIs to treat deviant sexual behavior

This is scary. I've just came across with this and I believe that if this use of SSRIs is not enough to convince that something very serious is happening I don't know what else is needed:

"In recent years SSRIs have been used to reduce sex offenders' deviant sexual thoughts and fantasies. Serotonin, a neurotransmitter, plays a role in regulating sexual drive, depression, obsessions, compulsions, anxiety, impulsiveness and anger. SSRIs are antidepressants that are also approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of obsessive-compulsive disorder and social anxiety. Although double-bind placebo controlled trials are needed, studies using self-report measures or PPG have found that these medications do reduce some repetitive sexually deviant fantasies and/or behavior (Greenberg& Bradford, 1997; Kafka, 1991, 1994; Kafka & Prentky, 1992, Stein et al, 1992), and to selectively decrease deviant arousal without significantly decreasing appropriate arousal (Bradford, Greenberg, Gojer Martindole & Goldberg, 1995; Kafka, 1992; Kafka & Prentky, 1994). Greenberg and Bradford (1997) have hypothesized that paraphilias may result when there is an inability to suppress conventional sexual appetites. Since serotonin affects sexual appetite, SSRIs may help alter a dysfunctional serotonergic system, thereby allowing suppression of unconventional sexual appetites."(emphasis mine)

"Furthermore SSRIs have been used in the treatment of PTSD. One study found that after a year of SSRI treatments, subjects with PTSD had a 5% increase in hippocampal volume and a 35% increase in memory function (Bremner, 2006)*. Together, these findings indicate a variety of reasons why SSRIs may be beneficial for offenders with multiple paraphilias." p. 547 (emphasis mine)

It's from this book:
Sexual Deviance: Theory, Assessment, and Treatment. edited by D. Richard Laws, William O'Donohue. New York, Guilford Publications, 1997.
A new edition fully revised was published in 2008.
This is the page from where I took the paragraph.
I had already thought reading on a fiction story, a movie or a novel, about using SSRIs to suppress arousal, women giving Paxil/Seroxat to their husbands and many other ways humankind can use this side effect.
But I never thought about this medical use.
I've stressed "deviant sexual thoughts and fantasies" because it's widely reported on SSRI-sex Yahoo group people claiming that their normal sexual fantasies and thoughts have been altered or disappeared.
Claiming that "SSRIs may help alter a dysfunctional serotonergic system" is not a good explanation. Why on earth people who have conventional sexual fantasies are also affected when they take SSRIs?
It's written here:
"Since serotonin affects sexual appetite,..." and this is what really happens along with changes in sexual thoughts and fantasies which should be investigated because normal people are having sexual problems such as anorgasmia, lost of libido, lack of sexual thoughts and fantasies even after years off SSRIs.
It should be considered as an serious iatrogenic condition and not praised because it can fix paraphilias.

*This is quite scary! I wonder what kind of alterations this increasing of hippocampal volume can do.

US x Brazil area

And the winner is:

	Countries by Area
	Rank Country / Territory Area (km²) % of Total Continent/Region — Earth 148,940,000 100% 1 Russia 17,098,242 11.5% Asia /Europe 2 Canada 9,984,670 6.7% America, North 3 United States 9,629,091 6.5% America, North 4 PR China 9,598,094 6.4% Asia, Eastern 5 Brazil 8,514,877 5.7% America, South

USA!!!!!!

The Royal College of Psychiatrists President - 2005

I believe that you all must know this editorial. However I've decided to copy and paste because it's beyond comprehension why so little is done.


Psychiatric Bulletin (2005) 29: 81-83
© 2005 The Royal College of Psychiatrists
Editorial
Dancing with the Devil? A personal view of psychiatry’s relationships with the pharmaceutical industry

Mike Shooter, President

Royal College of Psychiatrists

I had just spoken to a meeting of one of our users’ and carers’ organisations. Mingling at coffee time, I lapped up congratulations on how approachable the College had become, when I was brought up short by a long-term patient with a scowl on his face. ‘The trouble with you psychiatrists’, he said, ‘is that you’re all pill-pushers. You’re all in the pocket of the drug companies’.

As a child psychiatrist by trade, and as a President who has fought hard to tighten the College guidelines on sponsorship, I bridled at such stereotypes. But unfair though they may seem, the charges are persistent and deserve to be tackled head-on.

Reliance on medication

First, are we really ‘pill-pushers’ - do we rely on medication at the expense of other therapies? Well, let’s get one thing said straightaway: drugs do help. Few will now remember how the old phenothiazines allowed staff and patients in the late 1950s to tear down the walls that separated mental illness from the rest of the world, walls that reinforced the stigma of ‘them’ and ‘us’. The public who were appalled at what happened to Frank Bruno should appreciate that it was modern pharmacology that - by his own account - seemed to have returned him so effectively from intensive care to community. Frank’s experience is repeated in ward and clinic every day, through one drug or another. Whatever their ultimate aim, the pharmaceutical companies have poured billions of pounds into alleviating patient distress.

It would be comforting to think that attitudes to medication have shifted since the 1950s, from patient ‘compliance’ to ‘concordance’ - an agreement reached between patient and doctor, as equals within the therapeutic relationship, based on informed choice between all types of treatments. The reality, of course, is very different (Shooter, 2003). Patient power is only as good as information given, and that information is often poor. Not many patients will want complicated biochemical explanations, but where theories of drug action have changed so frequently, treatment is bound to seem empirical. Patients are entitled to ask their doctor why he or she is so keen on something whose mechanism is so little understood and whose side-effects can be so disabling, despite every effort to uncouple the therapeutic dosage from that at which side-effects occur (Tandon & Jibson, 2003).

Trust in the profession is further eroded when the suspicion grows that potentially catastrophic side-effects are being covered up. You would think that we would have learnt from the benzodiazepine story, when 16 million prescriptions were still being written every year, two decades after the first warnings had been sounded: but it seems we have not. The story is being retold with the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), through press headlines and the courts, and the price of medical protectionism will be just as high (Healy & Whitaker, 2003). If patients feel that they have been misled or kept in ignorance ‘for their own benefit’, how will they ever trust their doctor again?

All this is compounded when patients feel that medication is being ‘over-sold’, both in absolute terms and in comparison to other forms of help. Perhaps we should listen more closely to the narrative evidence of what patients feel like on their medication, rather than the randomised controlled trial that tells us what patients ought to feel because the science says so (Rose 2003). And when we do let in this element of subjectivity, it is the talking therapies that patients seem to value most, in combination with medication or in their own right. The problem is that medication is readily available (even in times of ‘postcode’ prescription) but the psychotherapies are not. Cognitive-behavioural therapy, of proven efficacy in an ever-widening range of illnesses, is difficult to implement in busy clinical settings. It is patchily available and therapists are poorly trained (Department of Health, 2001). Psychotherapy services are often seen as ‘soft targets’ by cash-strapped trust executives struggling to make ends meet. There is still too little emphasis on vocational rehabilitation - jobs and housing - so vital to the well-being of patients with severe illness (Boardman, 2003). And if all this is true of the patient population in general, it is even more so in the Black and minority ethnic communities where young African-Caribbean men are more likely to receive high doses of medication and have little access to any other therapy (Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire Strategic Health Authority, 2003).

The demand for quick results

We should not imagine that this is a one-way equation, however. General practitioners, under pressure of time and numbers, will say that the public’s demand for a diagnosis and quick-fit medical cure is just as great in mental disorder as it is in physical illness. Psychiatrists under equal pressure, and uncertain of their role in multidisciplinary teams, are apt to retreat into what they see as unique to them - the prescription of medication; but they are right to worry about being dragged into the medicalisation of ordinary social unhappiness. Political imperatives to meet targets based on throughput, easily identifiable outcome measures and the reduction of risk are bound to favour short-term compliance with medication over more subtle, long-term shifts in psychological outlook (Adelman et al, 2003), and Black and minority ethnic communities again will feel that this discriminates against them most (National Institute for Mental Health in England, 2003).

So the charge of pill-pushing, I would suggest, is not a fair one. Most psychiatrists, like their patients, would prefer to engage in face-to-face, in-depth relationships, in holistic packages of help as laid down in national guidelines (National Institute for Clinical Excellence, 2002), emphasising recovery and mental health rather than illness (Vaillant, 2003). If they are prevented from doing so, it is as much the fault of factors beyond their control as any medically dominated attitudes of their own. But what of the second charge - that psychiatry has fallen into the hands of the drug companies. Is that quite so easy to refute?

Influence of the drug industry

Of the 731 physicians directly employed by the pharmaceutical industry in the UK, 25 are psychiatrists; they tend to be regarded with a mixture of curiosity and suspicion (Aitken et al, 2003). But there are other ways in which the services of psychiatrists can be ‘used’. Personal enticements - the mugs, pens and desk-top toys - are usually accepted unwittingly or without a second thought as the psychiatrist tours the trade stands; yet it all helps to advertise the company’s products. Walking into some consultants’ rooms is like entering a shrine to one firm or another, and one has to ask what message that conveys to patients about the objectivity of the advice they are about to be offered. Other enticements - free holidays, free trips to conferences and first-class travel - are more blatant both in hand-out and receipt. I cannot be the only person to be sickened by the sight of parties of psychiatrists standing at the airport desk with so many perks about them that they might as well have the name of the company tattooed across their foreheads. It simply will not do.

And what of research? We have long known about the methodological flaws that bedevil even the randomised controlled trial, or the overemphasis of results that when carefully analysed boil down to little more than the odd insignificant point on a rating score above psychotherapy or placebo. More worrying is the deliberate bias that enters the selection of research design to achieve particular aims, or into the publication of their results. Findings in studies of both antidepressants (Baker et al, 2003) and antipsychotics (Moncrieff, 2003) have been shown to be clearly linked to the level of drug company sponsorship. The psychiatrist reading through them in search of advice may already be floundering in zones of clinical uncertainty (Anderson, 2003). This may turn to despair when 90% of JAMA authors are shown to have drug company links (Healy & Thase, 2003) and even Cochrane Reviews have evidence of ghost authorship among them (Mowatt et al, 2002).

Suggestions have been made to limit such conflict of interest or at least to expose it. Authors might be asked to describe their exact contribution to the research and its write-up; all raw data might be made accessible from industry-sponsored trials; any direct interference from the sponsor might be outlawed and the role of ‘assistants’ carefully delineated (Healy & Cattell, 2003). But the level of mistrust in press and public is now so deep that the jobbing clinician will have difficulty in persuading the patient that the advice being given about medication is open and honest.

Is there the same mistrust of the College too? There are clear and tightened guidelines on the relationship of individual psychiatrists with the pharmaceutical industry, on the sponsorship of local educational events and on College activities as a whole. They are posted on the College website and open to criticisms of whether they are yet tight enough. The level of industrial sponsorship of College activities has been steadily and deliberately reduced; it now forms less than 5% of the College’s total income. Where a company sponsors a public education leaflet they do so with no strings attached and with the most discreet acknowledgement. Trade stands at the College Annual Meeting are not nearly as prominent as at some conferences overseas, and symposia sponsored by drug companies are kept separate from the main programme and clearly advertised as such. What little general sponsorship is still obtained for the Annual Meeting is used for entirely worthy causes - the lowering of attendance fees for trainees and support for psychiatrists from third-world countries, or users and carers, who would otherwise not be able to attend at all. In the interests of transparency, registers are kept of commercial links and public declarations demanded of any presenter about possible conflicts of interest.

In other words, the answer to the second charge, I think, is that psychiatry as a whole is not for sale, but certain psychiatrists regrettably are. The College has taken great pains to put its own house in order on this as on many other controversial subjects. To remain vigilant, we need to listen carefully to our own members, to the user and carer organisations and to patients like the one who accosted me at the meeting I started with. Yes, I did manage to persuade him that his charges were in part unfounded; but he persuaded me that a lot more needs to be done.

References

ADELMAN, S., WARD, A. & DAVISON, S. (2003) Setting up clinical audit in a psychodynamic psychotherapy service: a pilot study. Psychiatric Bulletin, 27, 371 -374.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

AITKEN, P., PERAHIA, D. & WRIGHT, P. (2003) Psychiatrists entering the pharmaceutical industry in the UK. Psychiatric Bulletin, 27, 248 -250.[Free Full Text]

ANDERSON, I. M. (2003) Drug treatment of depression: reflections on the evidence. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 9, 11 -20.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

BOARDMAN, J. (2003) Work, employment and psychiatric disability. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 9, 327-334.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

BAKER, C., JOHNSRUD, M.T., CRISMON, M. L., et al (2003) Quantitative analysis of sponsorship bias in economic studies of antidepressants. British Journal of Psychiatry, 183, 498 -506.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH (2001) Treatment Choice in Psychological Therapies and Counselling. Evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines. London: Stationery Office.

HEALY, D. & CATTELL, D. (2003) Interface between authorship, industry and science in the domain of therapeutics. British Journal of Psychiatry, 183, 22-27.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

HEALY, D. & THASE, M. E. (2003) Is academic psychiatry for sale? British Journal of Psychiatry, 182, 388 -391.[Free Full Text]

HEALY, D. & WHITAKER, C. (2003) Antidepressants and suicide: risk-benefit conundrums. Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience, 28, 331 -337.[Medline]

MONCRIEFF, J. (2003) Clozapine v. conventional antipsychotic drugs for treatment resistant schizophrenia, a re-examination. British Journal of Psychiatry, 183, 161 -166.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

MOWATT, G., SHIRRAN, L., GRIMSHAW, J. M., et al (2002) Prevalence of honorary and ghost authorship in Cochrane reviews. JAMA, 287, 2769 -2771.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL EXCELLENCE (2002) Schizophrenia. Core Interventions in the Treatment and Management of Schizophrenia in Primary Care and Secondary Care. London: NICE.

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR MENTAL HEALTH IN ENGLAND (2003) Inside Outside. Improving Mental Health Services for Black and Minority Ethnic Communities in England. London: Department of Health.

NORFOLK, SUFFOLK AND CAMBRIDGESHIRE STRATEGIC HEALTH AUTHORITY (2003) Independent Inquiry into the Death of David Bennett. Fulbourn, Cambridge.

ROSE, D. (2003) Collaborative research between users and professionals: peaks and pitfalls. Psychiatric Bulletin, 27, 404 -406.[Free Full Text]

SHOOTER, M. S. (2003) The patient’s perspective on medicines in mental illness. BMJ, 327, 824 -826.[Free Full Text]

TANDON, R. & JIBSON, M. (2003) Efficacy of newer generation antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 28, 9-26.

VAILLANT, G. E. (2003) Mental health. American Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 8.

English - the language of science

From time to time a Brazilian patient's book appear on the library shelves telling their lives and recovery from depression and bipolarity.
I've translated this excerpt from the book of the journalist Maria Rezende "The Journal of a bipolar" to show the importance of any information from US:

"Olavo, who is my psychiatrist, prescribed me Lamitor because he knew that it would be the best for me. Althought it was for sale it was still being on trial by psychiatrist but he had access to informations because he worked in California University. This is the med I take till today."

As people are not fully informed about what is going on in US whenever someone points out an American research, FDA drug approval or informations of any kind it's taken as the most reliable scientific truth.
English is the language of science and legitimates any kind of theory or hypothesis. Physicians who are from any American university or linked to any institution are much more competent than those who aren't.

For Fiddaman

This AC/DC fan will have a special license and can park whenever he wants.
I've just phoned some Zepp's and they granted. I'll send you the identification Fiddy.
Welcome!

TGN1214 clinical trial - asking the media to do a good job

I've just found two e-mails I wrote to BBC in march 2006. It's about the TGenero drug trial that made 6 volunteers very sick. As i wrote in this post , by the time Philip Dawdy wrote an e-mail for two reporters of the Wall Street Journal and Stephany wrote a letter to Thomas Laughren, that I use to send e-mails even knowing that I will not have any answer.

This is one of them:

March 19, 2006
Dear Sirs,
About the Parelex, TGenero drug trial:
It was a bless in disguise that this horror happened in UK. Now you have hurt in your country young English citizens, a New Zealander and that is the reason why it is being reported. How many times horrors like this must have happened and has not been revealed.
This is the only way to catch attention to this horror and all the harm that Pharmaceutical Industry is causing in UK and around the world.
I do not use to watch CNN. But as the drug trial scandal is not being well reported by BBC, as I wrote before, I begun to follow the news on CNN. And I found out the reason why you cannot give too much information on this. I could not imagine that in UK the Pharmaceutical Industry use to advertise in search for volunteers in newspapers. Young people, students and unemployed are the target group to participate on these tests. Please, keep on doing your trials on english volunteers. Do not only look for poor people around the world.
It is in the Parliament review:
"A strong pound sterling makes matters worse for overseas companies. For those reasons, companies are increasingly placing their Phase II and III trials outside the UK, in low cost areas such as Eastern Europe, Russia and India." p. 18
The phase I must be in Africa and, as ethics is the last thing Pharmaceutical Industry holds dear, without people consent.
Perhaps the reason is:
"There is a shortage of appropriately trained clinical investigators in the UK, and this reflects lack of investment in clinical research and problems with clinical training pathways." p. 17
The review is very good and accurate. Unfortunately nobody pays attention.
I was astonished that CNN made a good approach on the matter interviewing doctors and even questioning ethics of Laboratories. BBC kept on repeating how luck that man was because he received placebo. From now on I will pay more attention on other sources. I was naive to believe that BBC is highly committed with good journalism. But I like Tim Sebastian even though "The Doha Debates" does not require all the skills he has. He was much better in HARDtalk.
Sincerely yours,

I've received a reply but unfortunately I have not save it but this is my answer:

Dear Mr. Giannini,

What I was trying to stress is that BBC did not put the TeGenero drug trial in a bigger approach.
In HARDtalk, Steven Sackur once said to a GlaxoSmith representative that this Laboratory is being regarded as very greedy.
I do not believe that BBC is not aware that Pharmaceutical Industry cares a lot about money. If you did not realize it refer yourself to the Business News. You will perhaps see a laboratory representative trying to explain to their shareholders that the antibiotics they sell is being tested to be used in many diseases as possible.
You have already made on Panorama a first step about the SSRIs problems and even Charles Medawar, from Social Audit, who is very concerned about this problem, was allowed to say three sentences. He also helped a lot with the Parliament review on "The Influence of Pharmaceutical Industry" and his name is on page 12.
As BBC kept on repeating that the laboratories need volunteers I begun to follow the news on CNN. And I found out one of the reasons why you cannot give too much information. I could not imagine that in UK the Pharmaceutical Industry use to advertise in search for volunteers in newspapers. Poor people, students and unemployed are the target group to participate on these tests. I was astonished that CNN made a good approach on the matter interviewing doctors and even questioning ethics of Laboratories. BBC, need more volunteers as Lady Janet Darbyshire kept on repeating. And "Almost half of all trial delays result from difficulties in finding volunteers, and that can equate with a company losing millions of pounds in sales for a new drug. " The Guardian.
The Parelex drug trial was reported because it has caused cytokine storm. The girl who claimed that her boyfriend was like "the elephant man" did not appear two days on BBC. You also forgot to say that the two of the must serious injured are in coma, perhaps for months. You forgot to report some others aspects of this scandal.
If you read http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,,1734446,00.html you will find more about this horror and also the story of a man who got sick in a "male pill" drug trial.
How many people got permanent damages in such trials but cannot complain for they suffer of a iatrogenic disease that has no name and they were paid to get sick?
I understand that you will not fight the Pharmaceutical Industry. But it was clear this time that you are protecting a lot.
Not only you. The MHRA, FDA, AMA.... Bush father....politicians. After all "It is the third most profitable economic activity after tourism and finance in UK."
And you can also rely on MHRA:
"The MHRA is looking at whether the reaction was caused by a manufacturing problem, contamination, a dosing error or whether it was some "completely unanticipated side-effect of the drug in humans".
Of course this has nothing to do with the drug. It was a contamination or manufacturing problem.
That is exactly what we cannot take any longer. The manipulation and the shameful way of depicting something tragic as a normal mistake are unacceptable.
We need to hear at least: "Certainly, action will be needed to stop any repetition of the tragedy that unfolded at Northwick Park. The sight of loved ones, horribly disfigured, will be indelibly fixed in the minds of friends and relatives who gathered by victims' bedsides" The Guardian
What I have learned from it all is not to rely on BBC's impartiality. I do not like CNN, but I will have the two views from now on. Unfortunately TV5-Monde became an entertainment channel and I have stop seeing it. If it had not changed I'm sure that they would have done a debate on this issue for it is a tragedy that has to do with health and have many aspects to be discussed. But in their News they explained how the drug trials are made in France and it is more ethical.
And of course keep on reading read newspapers.
I enjoy "The Doha Debate". Tim Sebastian is a very gifted man. But I believe it does not require all the skills he has. He was much better in HARDtalk.
I would love to see him in a Hardtalk with Simon Gregor, spokesman for the MHRA, Dr Thomas Hanke, TeGenero's chief scientific officer and some key persons who profit with this mad medicine that makes people sick, risks are more usual than benefits and even death is caused by medicines.
It is about time at least to start debating this vital issues that has to do with health. Does it sounds too idealistic? Guess so.
Sincerely yours,

Duke University and Seroquel XR for Social Anxiety Disorder

Duke University is conducting many clinical trials on mental health, neuroscience and neurological disorders.

1)Quetiapine XR for Social Anxiety Disorder

The purpose of this study is to examine:

• The short- and long-term effectiveness and tolerability of quetiapine XR for the treatment of social anxiety disorder (SAD)

• The continuation effects of quetiapine XR in preventing SAD relapse

Eligibility
We are looking for subjects 18-65 years old.
Requirements
The study consists of eight weeks of open-label treatment with quetiapine XR (50-400 mg/day). Those who show a minimal improvement will go into a 12-week period with either quetiapine XR or placebo.
There are total of 10 visits to Duke.
Compensation
Subjects will be compensated up to $270 after the completion of the study.
For more information, contact Nabila Lateef at 919-684-9701.

2)Generalized Anxiety Disorder

The purpose of this trial is to find out if the study drug can be used to improve symptoms of generalized anxiety disorder. We are looking for subjects between 18 and 65 years old.
Requirements

• You will be taking the study drug, PD0332334, at a dose of 350 mg, 450 mg, or 600 mg, or a placebo.

• Subjects cannot take antidepressants or antianxiety medications other than study drug during their participation.

• The study lasts up to 10 weeks once enrolled and requires nine visits to Duke.

Compensation
The study pays $45 per completed visit. This is paid after your last study visit
For more information, contact Nabila Lateef at 919-684-9701.

These are 8 of the 29 clinical trials that Duke University is doing:

New Drug for ADHD ; Project Activate II: 60 Years or Older and Feeling Down? ; Having Trouble Sleeping with Depression? ; Are You Sad or Blue and Do You Enjoy Things Less Than You Used To? this one will use paroxetine (Paxil/Seroxat/Aropax) and duloxetine (Cymbalta); Suffering From Bipolar Disorder? investigational drug ; Aripiprazole and Lamictal in Bipolar Depression ; Lexapro in Atypical Depression ; Are You Depressed? ;.....

and many others. After reading it I will try to volunteer for this last one of this list.
Can you understand why do they test the same drug over and over again?
Quetiapine (Seroquel) is already being used off-label for anxiety disorder and it would be a great help legitimize the use of these drugs. AstraZeneca will be very happy with the results.

Wow! Just found this:

Brain Donors Needed for Alzheimer's Disease Research
The Joseph and Kathleen Bryan Alzheimer's Disease Research Center at Duke needs brain donors who:

• Are at least 65 years old

• Have no memory problems

• Are willing to have yearly memory and neurological assessments in their home

• Live within one hour of Duke

Enrollment in the Autopsy and Brain Donation Program must be made well in advance of death.
For more information, contact Mari Szymanski, RN,C, at 1-866-444-2372 or 919-668-1908.

I would donate if a research would really help and in my case it would be the effects that psych drugs causes to the brain.
Why don't they start this kind of research since there are already suspicions that some of these drugs can change the brain size? There are evidences that SSRIs, based on patients' reports that these drugs have caused cognitive impairments, sexual problems that persists after quitting - a condition known as PSSD - violent behavior and other side effects and the withdrawal syndrome is still not recognized as a problem.
Many questions I have will not be answered in my lifetime.

Taking a break

I'm taking a break. I have to try to get distance so that I can have focus.
Unfortunately I'm one of those people who are very passionate and get very involved emotionally with some issues.
I've been crying for no apparent reason till I realized it was because I've been thinking about mental health issues for the last 6 months and got angry and sad, sad and angry, angry and sad...
I've also found out the I've reached the end of my therapy. After 20 years the problems that led me to psychoanalysis are... I don't know how to finish this sentence. I'm not healed. I don't believe that there's such a thing in psychotherapy, but I'm fine and don't need to talk about them any longer.
The strange thing is that I thought that finishing therapy was something like: "Party! I don't need it anymore!"
It's not like this. I still don't know what does it mean not needing therapy.
That's why I'll see my therapist, ex-therapist... this week. :)
I'm also thinking about helping depressed people but I still don't know how.
I'm not feeling blue or sad. I only have to take a break to learn how to keep balanced and not getting angry and sad reading Furious Seasons and my blog buddies.
Blog friends are also a joy for me.
I wish I had written it before and that it was not the first post of October but perhaps that's a good beginning.